On this page: Festus – Fidenas – Fides

FESTUS.

cuous position on account of their importance or from some superstitious feeling. Thus M is ushered in by Magnos Ludos, Meltom, Matrem Matutam, while the first fifteen articles in P are almost all derived from the most ancient memorials of the Latin tongue. These facts, taken in combination with the authorities quoted here and there, would lead us to infer that the words in the first part of each letter were taken directly from the De Signi-ficatu Verborum of Verrius, while those in the se­cond constitute a sort of supplement, collected by Festusfrom the other writings of the same author. We might also surmise, from the singular order, or rather want of order, discernible in the first part, that Verrius wrote down his observations upon certain sets of words upon separate sheets, and that these sheets were bound up without regard to any circumstance except the initial letter. An elabo­rate discussion upon these points will be found in the preface to the edition of M'uller.

The edition published at Milan, by Zarotus, on the 3rd of August, 1471, and inscribed, Sext. Pompeius Festus de Verltorum Significatione, that of Joannes de Colonia and Joannes Manthen de Gherrezen, 4to. Venet. 1784, a very ancient im­pression, perhaps older than either of the above, and probably printed at Rome by G. Lauer, to­gether with several others, merely reprints of the preceding, and all belonging to the fifteenth cen­tury, present us with nothing except Paulus Dia-conus. A volume appeared at, Milan, in 1510, containing Nonius Marcellus, Festus, Paulus, and Varro. This work was commenced by Jo. Bapt. Pius, who revised the Nonius, and was carried on by a certain Conagus, who was acquainted with both portions of the MS. of Festus, which he in­corporated with Paulus, thus giving rise to that confusion which afterwards prevailed so exten­sively. The above grammarians were reprinted, in the same form, at Paris in 1511 and 1519, at Venice by Aldus Manutius, in 1513, and very frequently afterwards, in different parts of Europe. More valuable than any of those already mentioned is the edition of AntoniusAugustinus, archbishop of Tarragona, 8vo. Venet. 1559-1560, in which we find not only a correct collation of the Farnese MS., but a separation of FestusfromPaulus. Augustinus was closely followed by Joseph Scali-ger, 8vo. 1565, who displayed great skill in his conjectural emendations and supplements, and by Fulvius Ursinus, Rom. 1581, who again collated and gave a faithful representation of the Farnese MS., and, following out the labours of Scaliger, filled up the blanks. The edition of Dacier " In usum Delphini," Paris, 1681, has been often re­printed, but possesses no particular value. Linde-mann, in his Corpus Grammaticorum Latinorum, vol. ii. Lips. 1832, has placed Paulus and Festus completely apart from each other, has revised the text of each with great care, and added a large body of notes, original and selected ; but far su­perior to all others is the edition of K. O. Muller, Lips. 4to. 1839, in which we find,—

1. A preface, with a critical account of the MSS. of Festus and Paulus, their history, and a most ingenious and laborious investigation of the plan followed in the arrangement of the words.

2. The text of Paulus in its best form, from the most trustworthy MSS.

3. The text of Festus, from the Farnese MS., carefully collated, in 1833, expressly for this edi-

149

FIDES.

tion, by Arndts. The fragments are printed ex­actly as they occur in the MS., in double columns, and placed face to face with the corresponding portions of Paulus, so as to admit of easy com­parison. The most plausible of the conjectural supplements by Scaliger and Ursinus are inserted in a different type.

4. The text of the Pomponian sheets, printed also in double columns, the contents of each page having been determined by accurate calculation.

5i A collection of the most useful commentaries.

[W. R.]

FESTUS, PO'RCIUS, succeeded AntoniusFelix as procurator of Judaea in a. D. 62, and vigorously repressed the robbers and assassins (sicarii), by whom the province was infested. It was he who bore testimony to the innocence of St. Paul, when he defended himself before him in the same year. Festus died not long after his ap­ pointment as procurator, and was succeeded by albinus. (Joseph. Ant: xx. 8. §§ 9—11. 9, § 1, Bell. Jud. ii. 14. § 1 ; Acts, xxiv. 27, xxv. xxvi.) [E. E.]

FESTUS, VALERIUS, legatus in Africa, A. d. 69, and an active, though secret, partisan of Vespasian in his war with Vitellius. He was one of the supplementary consuls for the year a. d. 71. (Tac. Hist. ii. 98 ; Fasti.) [W. B. D.]

FIDENAS, a surname of the Sergia and Ser-vilia Gentes, derived from Fidenae, a town about five miles from Rome, and which frequently occurs in the early history of the republic. The first Sergius, who bore this surname, was L. Sergius, who is said to have obtained it because he was elected consul in the year (b. c. 437) after the re­volt of Fidenae; but as Fidenae was a Roman colony, he may have been a native of the town. This surname was used by his descendants as their family name. [See below.]

The first member of the Servilia gens who re­ceived this surname was Q. Servilius Priscus, who took Fidenae in his dictatorship, b. c. 435 ; and it continued to be used by his descendants as an agnomen, in addition to their regular family name of Priscus. [priscus.]

1. L. sergiusC. p. C. n. fidenas, held the consulship twice, and the consular tribunate three times; but nothing of importance is recorded of him. He was consul for the first time in b. c. 437 (Liv. iv. 17 ; Diod. xii. 43); consular tribune for the first time in 433 (Liv. iv. 25 ; Diod. xii. 58) ; consul for the second time in 429 (Liv. iv. 30; Diod. xii. 73); consular tribune for the second time in 424 (Liv. iv. 35 ; Diod. xii. 82); and consular tribune for the third time in 418. (Liv. iv. 45 ; Diod. xiii. 2.)

2. M'. sergiusL. p. L. n. fidenas, consular tribune inB.c. 404 (Liv. iv. 61; Diod. xiv. 19), and again in b.c. 402 (Liv. v. 8, &e. ; Diod. xiv. 38). His bad conduct in the latter year, in which he allowed himself to be defeated by the enemy, and his punishment, in consequence, by the people, are related under esquilinus, No. 4.